North Dakota Father Held in Contempt After Teenage Daughter Refuses to Visit Mother
The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled on April 22, 2026, that a father can be held in contempt of court when his teenage daughter refuses to comply with court-ordered parenting time with her mother. In Vollmer v. Hove (2026 ND 80), the court found the father failed to impose adequate consequences on the child and warned that continued noncompliance could result in the court holding the child herself in contempt.
| Key Facts | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Vollmer v. Hove (2026 ND 80) |
| Decision Date | April 22, 2026 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
| Key Issue | Parent's responsibility for child's visitation refusal |
| Ruling | Father properly held in contempt for failing to enforce parenting time |
| Future Warning | Court may hold the child in contempt for continued refusal |
The Court's Decision Changes Parental Accountability Standards
The North Dakota Supreme Court's ruling establishes that custodial parents bear affirmative responsibility to ensure their children comply with court-ordered parenting schedules. The father in this case argued he could not physically force his teenage daughter to visit her mother, but the court rejected this defense. The justices determined that parents must take meaningful steps to encourage compliance, including imposing consequences for refusal.
Under N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-07, courts have broad authority to enforce parenting time orders. The statute allows judges to modify custody arrangements, impose fines, or hold parties in contempt when court orders are violated. The Vollmer decision confirms that a child's resistance does not automatically shield the custodial parent from accountability.
The court specifically noted that the father failed to remove privileges, restrict activities, or implement other disciplinary measures that might have encouraged compliance. This finding suggests North Dakota courts will examine what concrete steps a parent took before accepting claims that enforcement was impossible.
How North Dakota Law Addresses Parenting Time Enforcement
North Dakota has historically treated parenting time violations seriously, but this ruling provides clearer guidance on parental obligations. Under N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.6, both parents have a duty to facilitate the relationship between the child and the other parent. Courts interpret this duty broadly to include active encouragement of visitation.
Contempt of court in North Dakota can result in fines up to $1,000, jail time up to 30 days, or both under N.D. Cent. Code § 27-10-01.3. The court can also award attorney's fees to the aggrieved parent, adding financial consequences to noncompliance. In repeated violation cases, courts may consider modifying custody arrangements entirely, potentially transferring primary residential responsibility to the other parent.
The Vollmer ruling also introduced the possibility that courts may hold children themselves in contempt for refusing parenting time. While North Dakota courts have rarely exercised this authority, the Supreme Court's explicit warning signals a potential shift. Children age 14 and older can be held in contempt in North Dakota, though courts typically reserve this remedy for extreme circumstances.
What This Means for North Dakota Custody Cases
This decision affects thousands of North Dakota families with existing parenting time orders. According to North Dakota Court System data, approximately 4,200 custody cases were filed in 2025, and many involve ongoing disputes about parenting time compliance. Parents on both sides of these disputes should understand the new accountability standards.
Custodial parents must now document their enforcement efforts thoroughly. Keeping records of conversations with children about visitation, any privileges removed, and communications with the other parent will be essential if compliance issues arise. Courts will expect to see evidence of good-faith attempts before they will accept that enforcement was genuinely impossible.
Non-custodial parents gain additional leverage under this ruling. When children refuse visitation, the non-custodial parent can now point to Vollmer when seeking contempt findings. The burden shifts to the custodial parent to demonstrate they took reasonable steps to encourage compliance.
Practical Takeaways for North Dakota Parents
-
Document all enforcement efforts when your child resists visitation with the other parent. Keep a written log of conversations, consequences imposed, and any communications with the other parent about compliance issues.
-
Implement meaningful consequences for visitation refusal. Courts will examine whether you restricted screen time, limited social activities, or took other age-appropriate disciplinary measures before claiming enforcement was impossible.
-
Communicate proactively with the other parent about compliance challenges. Text messages or emails creating a record of your cooperation efforts strengthen your position if contempt proceedings arise.
-
Consider family therapy or counseling to address underlying issues causing the child's refusal. Courts view therapeutic intervention favorably when evaluating a parent's good-faith efforts.
-
Seek legal counsel promptly if contempt proceedings begin. A family law attorney can help present evidence of your enforcement efforts and argue mitigating circumstances.
-
Non-custodial parents should file motions promptly when visitation is denied. Delays in seeking enforcement can undermine claims that the violations are serious.
FAQs
Can a parent really be held in contempt if their teenager refuses to visit the other parent?
Yes, the North Dakota Supreme Court confirmed in Vollmer v. Hove (2026 ND 80) on April 22, 2026, that parents can be held in contempt for failing to enforce parenting time orders. Courts expect parents to impose consequences and take affirmative steps to encourage compliance, even with resistant teenagers.
What consequences can a North Dakota court impose for parenting time contempt?
Under N.D. Cent. Code § 27-10-01.3, contempt penalties include fines up to $1,000, jail time up to 30 days, or both. Courts may also award attorney's fees to the other parent and, in severe cases, modify custody arrangements to transfer primary residential responsibility.
Can North Dakota courts hold a child in contempt for refusing visitation?
The Vollmer decision explicitly warned that continued noncompliance could result in holding the child in contempt. North Dakota law permits contempt findings against individuals age 14 and older, though courts rarely exercise this authority against minors and typically reserve it for extreme circumstances.
What steps should a parent take when their child refuses to visit the other parent?
Parents should impose age-appropriate consequences such as restricting electronics or social activities, document all enforcement efforts in writing, communicate with the other parent about compliance challenges, and consider enrolling the child in family therapy. These documented steps demonstrate good-faith compliance efforts if contempt proceedings arise.
Does a child's preference matter in North Dakota custody enforcement?
While N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.2 allows courts to consider a child's preference in initial custody determinations, the Vollmer ruling clarifies that a child's preference does not override existing court orders. Parents remain obligated to enforce parenting time regardless of the child's stated wishes until the court modifies the order.
When to Consult a North Dakota Family Law Attorney
Parenting time disputes involve complex legal standards and fact-specific analysis. An experienced North Dakota family law attorney can help you understand your rights under current law and develop strategies for addressing compliance challenges. Our directory connects you with qualified attorneys in your area who handle custody enforcement matters.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.